s1eep

No it's not, God is a fallacy, it cannot really be applied to even creation, for Theists do not know anything about God. When they call him 'he', they commit another fallacy, and 'creator', another. The definition of God is composed of some natural things, which were taken from nature, this is combining science with religion. Because of this, it should be noted that God is not only a fallacy when used in a religious context, but also when used in a normative context. Atheism should not even exist---the perfect Atheism is non-existent. However, Atheism does exist, doesn't mean we should rule out the scientific principles behind God; creation we probably learned from observing ourselves; sex and reproduction are natural forms of creation. By no means am I saying this thing is one thing, and I haven't suggested it was male; like the before poster said, it fits the missing piece of the puzzle, it's the answer of the gaps. I'm simply pondering whether it exists or not, it was rationality that led me to believe there was a cause behind the big bang, not God, and have given an answer, based on natural observation, and I've brought it up for discussion. It's not something I follow with great devotion, and it's not something that is God-exclusive. How you know God is stupid...

And where are we controlled by this imagination I suggested? I never elaborated on the hypothesis, I admire it's technicality and wish to think more about it, as a fail-safe measure in-case it does exist. It's not an answer I will pursue with great devotion, this thread only. I was hoping for more ideas, it doesn't seem you believe your mind is powerful enough to understand this far back, or resist religion, so you don't even try. Science, is not perfect, it's conducted by an imperfect organism with it's own attributes to take account of, and these attributes effect science conducted. Just because this imagination was involved in the composition of humans, doesn't mean it controls them. It's like a force of nature, it simply is, what connects us all together, the imagination of the universe. No controlling what-so-ever; impersonal, you don't speak to it in words; not God, things like nature and time, or as I put it, imagination. There is creativity to everything, we must admire the end result of science, sometimes more so than science, other times not. What is the "big bang", to you, if only a percentage (probably) true?

No, you're saying I'm doing it. It's your 'half-arsed' signature one-liners that imply I'm religious, I clearly implied I didn't believe in God, and creation isn't God-exclusive. You think God is understood somewhat, and things apply to God; nothing applies to God, it's a fallacy. Things apply to the big bang, we can use reverse-engineering to predict a big bang occurring, and then use the same process on the big bang. I have have implied that the big bang has intelligent design, that fundamental imagination was behind it, that is by no means God-belief, I took imagination from the real world, you can't take God from the real world. I answered with imagination for the question "What happened before the big bang?", not God. You 'think you understand God' because you then say what I'm doing is 'God-like', you know nothing about God apart from stories, you're a fallacy. What I like to call 'unknowingly religious'.

You're trying to force me to be religious, this is typical of 'modernized' scientists and what they consider 'stupid'.

I don't agree, I think there was purpose-driven consciousness in our evolution. I hate it when scientists say, emotions and senses are only chemical reactions in the brain and body, because it is incorrect and biased to one perspective; the cause and effect are equal. It's like saying vision is the eyes, that's partially true, but vision is also vision, the effect of the cause. Are you truly asserting that there was no consciousness involved in our evolution? There had to be, for we didn't only evolve, we survived. Something happened to what was 'nothing', for it to create the universe. Simply saying that "a big bang happened to nothing", is in the same predicament as saying "imagination happened from nothing".

I understand up until "the God of the gaps"---"the answer of the gaps" would be correct. I'm Atheist, belief in a cause for the big bang is not belief in God, it's rational belief.

Rationalism.

I don't say, and I confirmed I didn't in my last post, this 'primal imagination' was everything and everywhere, but I asserted was the cause behind the big bang, and to add, maybe accounts for the creativity, and the "Why?" factor of the universe. The question was, "what caused the big bang?". My answer was not irrational. There could've been chaos prior to the big bang that caused it to occur, this chaos I have defined as primal imagination (not controlled within a vessel such as the mind, but spontaneous; creative energies), creating things, opposed to nothing, something. My idea of it is that there was such an amount of chaos, possibly infinite imaginations, that the state of nothing became super-massive, and parts of the imagination started to purify (become realer), harmony was found, and this is where all the material required for the universe came about, through sheer intensity of imagination, that eventually created a big bang. It's just a guess, but can you tell me why I'm religious because of this? Again, creation is not mutually exclusive with God.

This is not something I worship, or preach, I think there are more stressing issues, such as the natural world, that are more worthy of worship. I'm sceptical as to what natures are out there... How did we come up with the big bang? Reverse engineering, of course, plus, we must have took to idea of from explosions or 'bangs' we experienced... Shouldn't we be able to apply reverse-engineering to the big bang? It stems from a cause---I'm sceptical as to whether a cause exists, and rightfully so, because it makes no sense that there was nothing behind such a composition. In a sense, I'm being rational; there's a flaw in the common Atheist logic. I've put the pieces of the puzzle together, I've been consistent with the universe by applying it's own kind to events in the past, just as we did with 'bangs' and the 'big bang'. I have not delved all the way into fiction, unless I'm incorrect; it's something that can be traced back to natural observation, but on the other hand there is no evidence for God. Creation and God are not mutually exclusive, we can approach creation scientifically. For example, a male and female create a child---this is knowledge about the universe. I'm sorry that my answer was the highlight of the post, it's a guess based on my own senses and feelings about the evidence I've experienced. It's the same scenario as me asking about the big bang, however, I will try to give you an answer... Imagination is so simple, yet intricate and complex when analysed in depth. My hypothesis is that nothing possessed a type of mindless imagination by default.

I’m an Atheist, but I’m in disagreement with other Atheists who believe there was not wisdom behind the genesis of the universe. How can something composed come about without science behind it? A tree, for example, comes from a seed – the seed, the tree. If the big bang happened, then we all came about through that. The question I’m bringing to the table is, beyond God, why did the big bang occur? There has to be a reason for such an event, especially one that’s considered scientifically, super-massive. My own answer is that there was primal imagination.

Well. It is imaginable. Are we not composed of infinity?

May I ask why that was word salad?

Where does the idea of God come from? It is not present and therefore it cannot be understood in order for it to be reproduced, and it has to be made up by something; the question is, what leads us to making up God? For what reasons do we force ourselves to believe in a higher being, specifically 'God', what gave us the impression that God was the correct answer? When we believe in things that are non-existent, purely fictional, is it belief in a perfect universe where this was possible? That would mean that God could be perfection, or the closest that we can get to understanding it. Why omnipotence? What leads us to worship this kind of power (not stupidity)? Isn't it a perfect situation for anyone, to know all and be everywhere? Imagine what you could do with that power, life would be a dream. We like sheep would follow someone if they could give us this power, and we do follow power in life as a species. Evidence of power in different forms exists, and if we are thinking of the most powerful, our evidence is the people and the vast universe that was created-- it's not 100% evidence, it takes a bit of rationality, but what evidence is 100%? The real product is the realest that anything can get to understanding something. Is God the closest we can get to perfection?

What do we get out of reading it all? A good idea of Muhammad that we can use to better understand terrorists? Can you give me a short summary that tells us what this thread means? From skim reading I read some story about a man and people he knows. I guess religion, and having a perfect example man or women as a main character is good, when people are following, because they have direction, but I don't see what most religions are trying to achieve, They either are very cryptic or formalized with their message because it's very unclear what it means to be Christian or Muslim. The Tao Te Jing on the other hand is a worthy book, it doesn't use Gods but it has a main character called 'the sage', and is focused around nature. Does it give us a clue about religion being linked with terrorism?

The environment, and my body and mind (and possibly spirit). You may think "LOL.jpg he doesn't want to talk, what an idiot", but I also move, and sense, and do everything else I consider ABOVE THE WORD.

No, I think that's insanity, but I'm not insane. I'm very calm with my beliefs, they don't control my life or my character.

There would also have to be the biggest universe.

No, I'm obsessed with THEE perfection. Allow me to explain my troubles; when writing an essay I absolutely must justify my writing, if not I can't see any good in my writing because it looks too imperfect-- that's not to say I don't see some imperfections as perfect, and sometimes that is exactly what allows me to finish a piece of unjustified writing. That's just one example, there're plenty. I'm someone that goes for appearances, when looking for love I can't help but aim the highest possible and I feel no attraction to anyone who is below average, though I don't care how my friends look. This is not me being egotistical, this is me being a little obsessed with perfection, even if perfection is subjective. Talking is fake, people just say the most obvious response, or something that happened to them earlier, or something random. I could talk with you and then predict what you will say next (only when having friendly banter, not cases where the words being used for intelligence), because talking is so simple. Furthermore, most talk is based upon the ego-- you have a reputation to uphold; the structure and contents of your post is expressing the character you believe yourself to have-- it's not your character, it's completely fictional, it's a product of all the events you've experienced and labelled, all the things you've said and done, which can be reset, you could just forget about all of that and be less egotistical. I don't understand what socializing is meant to accomplish apart from happiness.

I guess what I want people to do is be less egotistical. I told you I was obsessed with perfection; I'd rather there was no socializing with words, because I don't understand what it means to socialize, and talking seems so fake to me unless it's for intelligent reasons.

I don't suppose you could use beginner terminology to explain what timelines are or what you mean?

With great power comes great responsibility. I don't believe in God, but I read that he gives you life, and thus you owe him somewhat already; you are in his debt, however, it is not a burden upon you while you live. I think it's fair to be judged upon death, and if you were evil, you go to hell for a certain amount of time, or even eternally; maybe 'hell' is non-existence whilst good people live on. God is forgiving, I think if he existed, a being with wisdom and understanding above our own, he would be able to judge correctly, forgiving children and people that couldn't really help but be evil, and sending those that could help it to hell. I think we underestimate the being of God, he could be like a hermit. very isolated from everyone but here in spirit-- that God doesn't interfere with his creation, and thus we will never prove he exists, on the other hand, God would be able to prove we exist, he is above us in every way.

I have the same idea, but I thought that was always what afterlife was like (i.e. this is nothing new).

Is our short-term memory stored in higher quality than long term memories? As said, I dream every night, but, when I dream it usually relates to the art I was looking at on the internet, my thoughts, and the events I experienced that day. This leads me to believe we humans have a short-term memory cache like computers do, and when we go to sleep it resets or at least becomes of a lower used quality. Perhaps dreaming is siphoning the youth from short-term memory. And how and why does our body and mind produce a dream world for us to dream in? It comes from memory, but that doesn't explain why our bodies and mind are capable of building a world, that explains us experiencing the dream world, not the dream world constructed.

I have dreams every night. In dreams, I experience beings that are of the same nature of things experienced in reality. Are these beings made out of energy and matter like those in reality? If not, what're they made from? If yes, how do we form them in mind, where does the extra matter and energy come from and how are they conveyed in a dream?